Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • they should not be docking your wages for ANY PCN's thats £452 they've taken for WHAT? i VERY much doubt its for this PCN at ALL!! the maths makes no sense. even if it had gone all the way through to bailiffs they can only add £310, £310+£50=£360...not £452!! .................... i have attached one of your pdf's, is that your home address blanked out in otherwords that notice to owner went to YOU? so this pcn with bailiffs (IF its the same numbered one!!) wasnt paid in 14 days @£25, so it went to £50. now you state there was no pcn on your windscreen, though the NTO attached states there WAS. so you did not get the original PCN, the council never sent you one with your name and address after they must have been told who was leasing the vehicle when the council wrote to our employer the hiree and they told them you were the leaser from the trust. the council should have sent a new pcn and  reset everything. so you appear to me to have legal cause to appeal using the correct forums by reading        
    • Can't remember the original creditor now but it will have been a CC. Last payment to OC would have been a long time ago, as I recall, I think it was almost SB when they took it to CC - around 12 mths left ish. Thx, I'll wait to hear from the court then.
    • for lowells then.  i could instruct my dog to sit, if it does is a totally different matter.. whats the debt and when did you take it out? and when did you last pay it? you know the game from the info we asked you in your current claimform thread. bottom line  ignore them. nothing they can do. thats just a std threat-o-gram sent automatically by email which is a freeway to try and scare you. the debt is >£600 so in all truth they could even use HCEO's but eitherway and even for a charging order, they STILL have to return to court to ASK the court to allow bailiff use or apply for a charging order, and if any of those were to be attempted, the court would write telling you giving you the opportunity to object.  might be the best option as when its back in court you could then demand they show you the signed credit agreement   ps you wont its nothing to do with them now. the claim was adjudged. dx
    • The payment plan was made officially through the court who accepted it. It has always been maintained apart from as explained.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 

      Many thanks 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.


      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Dispute With Tesco Mobile

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1976 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

In February I may have inadverdantly used some data in an airport resulting in a bill for around £260.

I disputed this bill on the grounds that a safety buffer should have been on my account.


TM claim I removed the safety buffer when I upgraded however I dispute this.

In an email confirmation I received when I upgraded, there is no mention of the safety buffer at all.


Having reached deadlock, I escalated the matter to the Ombudsman.

During the course of my complaint, TM terminated my contract as the oustanding balance remained unpaid.

I had offered to pay any bills other than that which was disputed

however TM ignored this and the total they now claim I owe is in the region of £1600.


The Ombudsman have ruled in favour of TM.

They say that they cannot prove one way or another whether I removed the safety buffer while upgrading however they think it is more likely that I did.

They have offered no rationale for this.


I have stated that TM's actions in terminating the contract and billing me for the outstanding value while a bill is under dispute goes against the spirt of offering a resolution service and in fact undermines it. The Ombudsman accept this but have no powers to do anything about it.


TM claim their records show I removed the safety buffer.

An online order confirmation appears to show this however this was never sent to me and the email confirmation does not mention it at all.

There is a data cap which applies to roaming outside the EU.

Even without the safety buffer, I do not believe I have ever opted out of this.


Finally, TM's mobile states the following:


"If you’re not on a Capped contract or have removed your safety buffer

We’ll still protect you with a high-usage limit!to stop you running up unexpectedly high bills.

This limit varies per tariff but could be !up to! 4 times the cost of your monthly tariff.

If you reach this high-usage limit you won’t be able to use your phone until you make a payment.


Also, there’s a limit on how much you can spend on data abroad – to help you avoid a scary bill when you get home.


You can spend up to £40 on data, but! after that we’ll bar your device, so you don’t rack up any more charges.

If this happens, you can call us on 4455 from your Tesco Mobile phone, or call our automated payment line free on 4488 and once you’ve made a payment you can use your phone again within 2 hours. If you’re on a tariff with a safety buffer!then you can protect what you spend by choosing a safety buffer that’s right for you.


If you’re happy to spend more than £40 on data when you’re away, call us on 4455 before you go."


TM did not apply any bar on my phone after the £40 limit. I think it is clear from the above that, even if TM's contention that I had removed the safety buffer is correct, the bill should still not have exceded £40. The Ombudsman did not consider this final piece of information as it was not available to me at the time.


I am looking for advice on how to proceed.

My main concern here is removing adverse information from my credit file as soon as possible and obviously I have no intention of paying monies that I do not owe.


From what I can gather I may need to take the matter to court but this would also cost me money I would rather not spend.

Edited by dx100uk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actual ombudsman or adjudicator? Because no matter what they say, there will be documentation somewhere that supports their claim. If they dont have it, then really the case would have been found in your favour.


Have you sent TM a SAR to get ALL info they hold on you so you can go through it with a fine comb?

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..



If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was Ombudsman: Communications. The Ombudsman report states: "TM say its records indicate that this option was selected at the point of sale; I have no reason to dispute this."


They have provided an order summary which says 'no safety buffer'. This differs from what was emailed to me.


I have not sent an SAR.

Edited by Moz1972
Link to post
Share on other sites

sar time!!

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also send a formal letter that puts the debt into dispute, so they should stop collection attempts while they try and sort it out. But going by your info so far, theyll likely just ignore it.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..



If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...